The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) A copy of the exclusive agreement delivered by the Defendant to the victim D is a copy which was kept in the custody of the company. The Defendant did not deliver a copy of the agreement attached to the above exclusive agreement to the above victim to the above victim. The above victim did not read the attached agreement attached to the above exclusive agreement prior to the above case. Thus, the Defendant’s delivery of the attached agreement with which part of the Defendant was deleted to the above victim does not constitute deception against the above victim, but does not constitute deception against the above victim, and it does not constitute a relation with the above victim’s disposal act (hereinafter “the lawsuit of this case”). 2) The Defendant did not have the legal capacity to confirm the existence of the exclusive agreement against G, H, and I (hereinafter “L”) among K members, and did not have any legal capacity to resolve the dispute between the Defendant and the 1st instance court, as the Defendant appointed an attorney-at-law who operated the above exclusive agreement.

In the case of fraud (hereinafter “instant lawsuit No. 2”), the establishment of deception should be determined at the time of deception. However, if the said G et al. won in the lawsuit brought by L, the crime of fraud is not established. Thus, the Defendant did not notify the victims of the lawsuit.

Even if it does not constitute a deception of fraud (hereinafter “instant claim 3”), the Defendant 4) trusted that the attorney-at-law affiliated with the law firm has been given a certain advice and trust in winning the lawsuit, and even if the lawsuit has been lost, three persons, such as G, except BoreJ, etc., are deemed to be possible to replace, and thus, G, etc. to the victims.